memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:Shran/2007 Archive
For older discussions, see my Archive. Hey, Enzo. I appreciate the welcome, but it's me. I just don't like signing into my account on public computers. :P (PS: Get on IRC, will ya? lol) --137.155.21.106 20:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC) "little blonde lab technician" Hello. You just sent me an invitation not long ago to set up an account, and I decided to take it. Glad to be a member. I made an addition to the article on James T. Kirk that you seemed to disagree with: I turned the phrase "little blonde lab technician" into a direct link to Carol Marcus's page and claimed that she was the only one of the women listed who was blonde. In response...I admit I forgot about Ruth, or the fact that she was blonde. I don't believe her name was listed though in the paragraph in which I said. "She was, however, the only one of these women who was blonde. However, unless I'm mistaken Kirk knew her while he was still at the Academy, and the "little blonde lab technician" was someone that Kirk met after after he had graduated--which rules out Ruth as a possibility. As for Janet...looking at her picture, I would argue that she is in fact a light brunette. But I suppose she could be considered dark blonde too. Carol Marcus however is I think the most likely candidate for the "little blonde lab technician" and the only person I have ever seriously considered as such. I viewed your user page and appreciated a lot of your comments and theories about Enterprise. I have developed similar theories of my own as well as some that differ somewhat. I look forward to expounding on those in my own user page in the future. Thanks for the welcome. Antodav :OK. Well I guess you have a point there. And yes, I did miss Ruth's name. Perhaps we could just say "possibly Carol Marcus" after "little blonde lab technician," so demonstrate our suspicions without saying out and outright that she IS the person being referred to? Antodav 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC) ::OK, as a fair compromise, I added a direct link to the Ambiguities section right after the mention of the "Little Blonde Lab Technician." This way, we avoid being redundant, the line between canon and fan speculation is respected, and the point that the LBLT is quite probably (and most likely) Carol Marcus still gets across. Hopefully this will be a fair compromise for everyone :-) Antodav 06:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Species Page sure no problem, i didnt know that was preferred. Thank you for telling me Muchas gracias My User Page Okay...I didn't know you could do that; I thought my user page was protected so that I was the only one who could edit it--but in this case I don't really mind, so thanks, I guess. I was actually going to go through and try to do that myself anyway. I had trouble deciding what probably merited an article on Memory-Alpha and what didn't. Certain things may not be directly Trek related but may be related to themes addressed in various Star Trek episodes (for example, political topics). I'm used to posting on Wikipedia where you're supposed link pretty much every significant term in the article for the benefit of readers who may not be familiar with those terms. I recognize that I went too far with it. There are a few things there that I linked to which I do believe actually merit articles, though. There was no article for Niners, for example, so I went ahead and created one. There were a few other terms, such as "Newbies" and "gushers," which I felt deserved articles as well. I guess I'll formally put forth a request for those articles before writing them, however. I won't create an article for my own series, certainly not before it's even been posted online. However I don't see why there shouldn't be at least one article that briefly mentions and links to fan-created series on the web, even if such series can't get their own articles outright. I might put forth a request for that too. Now, if you can help me with somethiing else...how do I get a user subpage like the one you have? I have a few Trek-related articles, theories, etc. that I'd like to put on there. -Antodav 00:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC) :Hello again. Thanks for the instructions on how to create a user subpage; I really appreciate it. The Catholic Church :I see your point about the Roman Catholic Church never having been directly referenced in any episode of Star Trek. Christianity, indeed, is almost never mentioned on Star Trek, certainly not during the latter-day incarnations of the series. During the time of the Original Series, the few indirect references to Christianity, for example the episode "Bread and Circuses," were oblique at best and deliberate "bones" thrown to conservative Christian audiences to ward off TV censors of the 1960s (who were far more conservative than they are today and probably would have taken serious action against Star Trek if Gene Roddenberry had promoted his atheist views in a more blatant manner). As I described in the text of the user page, if you read it, the Federation's seeming lack of any sort of religious faith whatsoever (unless, of course, you count the Federation people's virtually unanimous and unwavering support for the state itself) is indeed one of the elements of the series that I lament the most. :Nevertheless, that of course does not in and of itself justify an article about the Catholic Church on Memory Alpha. It's worth pointing out, however, that there are several references to Catholicism in the article about Christianity. Even if the Catholic Church has never been referenced outright and directly, the oblique references to the Catholic Church and Catholic traditions that are mentioned in that article may justify an article about Catholicism, if for no other reason than simple clarification. I admit, of course, that I am somewhat biased. :-). Newbie :I'm not sure how your references to articles about Star Trek producers, fan clubs, etc, relate to whether or not there should be an article that briefly explains the meaning of a Newbie. However, as far as how the term relates to Star Trek, it was a term that I was unfamiliar with before I became a Star Trek fan and began posting regularly on the Startrek.com bulletin boards. :A Newbie, in case you don't know, simply discribes someone who is new to Star Trek, and thus, presumably, does not know much about what they're talking about on a Star Trek bulletin board. it can take a neutral connotation or a derogatory one, in the latter case often to dismiss an arguement made by someone when a person who has been a fan for a longer period of time than that person cannot come up with a reasoned argument during a debate. :I have never heard the term applied to fans of any other series or franchise, though I suppose there's no real reason why it couldn't be (except, perhaps, that there is not nor has there ever been any television franchise in existence with the scope, complexity, or mangitude of Star Trek). While not necessarily Trek-specific, neither are the terms basher or gusher, but the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_Enterprise#Controversy Wikipedia article on Star Trek: Enterprise] nevertheless explains the meanings of both terms. I believe that it is reasonable to use Wikipedia as a standard for judging what is or is not appropriate on Memory Alpha. Therefore I argue that, because the term does have at least some tangential relevance to the Star Trek fan community, if not to Star Trek canon, it diserves some kind of reference and explanation--at the very least within a larger article describing fan-related terms. Trekkie after all has an article of its own, and to my knowledge the term has never been used onscreen (unless you count Free Enterprise or the documentary Trekkies). Fan Pages and Commodore :I was unaware that there were already pages for fan films, fan fiction, and fan publications. I stand corrected. Once I have something posted online and ready to be viewed perhaps I will link to the site one of those pages. I'm not sure which one I would want to do it on though...obviously Commodore is not a film, since #1 it's intended to be a television series and #2 I take it too seriously to ever try to make it with cheap special effects and amateur, unpaid actors, which would undoubtedly produce a final product that looked ridiculous--yet the version of it that I finally post online will most likely be script-based, so "film" seems to fit it better than any of the other two categories. The term "fan fiction" usually refers to original stories based on pre-existing series, or new, narrative-based stories or series that are not intended for serious consideration as part of canon, so it's not one that I like to use to apply to Commodore either. Fan publication I suppose might fit except that the word "publication" sounds very final, and a website is hardly the highest aspiration I have for Commodore. Furthermore the article on fan publications, from the looks of it, doesn't really seem to be appropriate this kind of project. :I have always referred to Commodore using the term "series proposal." However, I doubt there's any such category on Memory Alpha, and further doubt that I would be allowed to make one. An article about the series itself of course is out of the question, because first of all it's not canon (yet, anyway) and second of all because it would--fairly--open the door to every fan-based idea for a series ever concieved of getting its own page, which would of course seriously bog down Memory Alpha. That's not something that I would ever want to see happen; it's a good site, even if I do take issue with some of the information presented on it (when I make my user subpage, you'll see what I mean). :At any rate that's not something I really need to worry about until after I build my own site. For now I think I'll just add a subsection about it on my user page, if that would be acceptable ;-). :Thanks again for all your help. You have really given me a very warm welcome, and I appreciate that. :--Antodav 10:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC) :P.S.: Out of curiosity, how was your user page vanalized? I do have a genuine fear of the same sort of thing happening to mine, especially considering the page's political content. ---- :: I don't think that Newbie, Gusher, or Basher are relevant enough to Trekkie to add sections about them in that article. I'll just forget about them for now. Going by the standards that you described, my only concern now is that my article about Niners might get deleted. And I'm sorry to hear about the vandalism your page suffered; I must be sure to save mine as soon as possible before someone ruins it. I don't know how to revert an edit though. ::Now, as for religion (and I'm deeply sorry now for opening this can of worms)... ::We can debate Gene Roddenberry's motives for deliberately ignoring and/or attacking religion on Star Trek forever. None of us can actually talk to the man now, so I suppose no one can really know for sure, what his views are, and why he chose to tell the kind of stories he did. If anyone had asked him though if he were hostile to religion he probably would have denied it or just avoid the question entirely (especially during a time when McCarthyism was still being practiced). ::I don't think you can say though, that Roddenberry didn't focus on religion. A great many episodes of Star Trek have themes about religion--only thing about them is, they're almost always negative. It's undeniable that Star Trek has a history, going all the way back to the Original Series, of depicting virtually anyone who believed in God as being backwards, primitive, and ignorant, in contrast to our noble, morally impeccable, "evolved," "humanist," atheist Human heroes. In cases where such a portrayal is not possible, such as the Bajorans or the Klingons, religious followers are shown to be either irrational, violent, fanatical terrorists ("The Homecoming"/"The Circle"/"The Siege", "Chosen Realm"), or mindless sheep blindly following rules laid down by religious leaders who are either soulless machines ("Return of the Archons," "The Apple," "For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky")--in which cases the point was clearly to say that God is a creation of man, like a computer, or a machine--or power-hungry, hypocritical demagogues bent on repression, control, censorship, and manipulation (the Bajoran religious leadership on DS9, particularly Kai Winn). That's more than just wanting to show humans "having faith in themselves" rather than some spiritual entity. In my book, that's outright, flagrant, and unapologetic bigotry. And besides, there's a differnce between wanting to show humans having faith in themselves and their capacity to do great things, and having humans worship themselves and view themselves as superior beings (destined for godhood, as Picard once implied to Q) at the center of the universe. ::It wasn't just Gene Roddenberry who insisted on stereotyping religion and religious followers this way though: Rick Berman, Brannon Braga, and Manny Coto were all guilty of it too throughout all four spinoff series, and indeed, all of Hollywood has a habit of seeing religion in those terms (just look at The DaVinci Code, for a current example). It's probably more to do with the culture of the industry than it is any deliberate attempt of malice on the part of any producer, though I do believe that Roddenberry was in fact determined to discredit religion as much as he could get away with in the 1960s. ::As for Roddenberry not wanting to show which religions survived into the future and which didn't...most religions on Earth have been around for thousands of years; it's highly unlikely that any of them would just vanish from existence within the next three centuries. Yet that seems to be exactly what Gene Roddenberry was trying to get people to believe would happen. The only reason plausible reasons why all of the world's major religions would cease to exist so suddenly are if they were ::*(a) forcibly suppressed (which is typical of communism), ::*(b) had their followers wiped out through acts of mass genoicde by atheists against believers (otherwise known as [[Josef Stalin|'pogroms']]), ::*© the cultures to which those religions pertained completely ceased to exist and were supplanted by one whose dogma is atheism (consider the abandonment of Olympianism by the Greeks and Romans in favor of Christianity). ::Which of these took place in the case of the Star Trek universe we will not know until there is an episode that deals with that period of transition. However it happened, it was probably quite some time before the Federation was formed, most likely during the time of the Postatomic Horror. ::Anyway, this discussion is clearly getting out of hand. Clearly I'm overrruled as far as having an article about the Catholic Church is concerned, so I'll cease to promote the idea of creating one. I'm hereby dropping the subject. ::--Antodav 04:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC) ---- :::Thank your for the information about reverting a page, though I hope I will never have to use it. I am also relieved that the discussion about religion has been terminated; I want to make friends at Memory Alpha before I make enemies. :-)--Antodav 06:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC) Star Trek fan fiction I've recently come across a wiki site devoted to Trek fanfiction and fanon, Star Trek Exanded Universe, and I was wondering if it would be okay to put a link to that site in MA's Fan fiction page--Robert Treat 02:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC). Fen Domar 'Kay, well, I made the appropriate changes. I really don't think we were meant to believe that the Fen Domar are a Delta Quadrant race though. --Antodav 07:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC) :Yes, but we don't know whether they were or were not... they could have also been an Alpha Quadrant race, as well. ;) --From Andoria with Love 07:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC) ::I don't see how they could have been an Alpha Quadrant race, since it would have taken Voyager more than just "a few years" to get that far, but whatever. I think the discussion on the Talk Page of that article helped to clear everything up enough. --Antodav 05:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC) User subpage I have a few quick questions: *First, how many user subpages am I allowed to have? *Second, what content am I allowed to put on my user subpage? *Third, how long is a subpage allowed to be? I ask this because I have a lot of theoretical content, similar to what you have on your own subpage, that I'd like to post on those subpages, as a way of contributing to the discussion about resolving various continuity issues, the timeline, etc. I'm not sure if it can all fit on one page, because when I tried to add additional information to my main user page, it told me to keep it under 30kb. I'd also like to, if I may, add some key information related to my series proposal, Star Trek: Commodore, for anyone who is interested in knowing what I'm talking about. The information I would want to include would be approximately equal to that which exists on any of the five pages about each of the series, sans the episode listings of course (particularly since most of them have not yet been fully written out yet anyway). This would include: *a brief summary of what the series is about, *a description of its relationship to established, canonical Star Trek *a listing of the series's major characters. Once I create my website I'd probably like to include a link to it on either my main page, my subpage, or both. The FAQ on user pages is unclear in this regard: I'm not uploading any files or using the subpage as storage space, but Commodore is not, as the FAQ demands, "strictly related to the project" (being non-canonical at this time and my own personal creation). Still, it's not like I'd be posting the entire series on here or something; we're talking 500 words at the very most. I want to make sure I'm not violating any policies before I create this subpage. If anything is inappropriate I'll just leave it off. Thanks in advance, --Antodav 05:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC) ---- OK, well, seeing as how I'm getting conflicting information as to how many subpages I can have, I think I will limit the pages to just two: one for Commodore, and one for all my speculations and theories. If I get too many objections to the Commodore page after a while I'll simply delete it and just link to my webpage after it's been created. I promise not to spend excessive time and effort on the user page; in fact I should be done with it by the end of this week. Regarding talk page formatting...sorry, that was a misunderstanding. I was unaware that the indentations were being use as a way to denote the speaker; I thought that indenting something on a talk page was a way of indicating that a comment that was made was a reply to something else. I'm accustomed to doing it that way on Wikipedia talk pages. I didn't realize I was causing a disruption; my only intention was to add clarity to the discussion. I apologize. The whole Fen Domar/Beta Quadrant issue is semantic in my opinion, but if you want to change it to make it clearer that we don't know for certain that the Fen Domar are from the BQ, then please, just go ahead and change it to whatever you think it should be. I tried several times to reword the first sentence of the article myself, but eventually I gave up because I just couldn't get it to sound right. I thought that the added canonical evidence of Voyager's position at the end of the series (as discussed both in the article itself and on the talk page) would allow me to say with a reasonable degree of certainty that the Fen Domar are indeed a Beta Quadrant civilization, but apparently I'm wrong, which is fine by me. I admit that I don't completely understand Memory Alpha's canon policy yet (for example, I just read the article about the Federation Starfleet, which is full of conjectures stated as though they were canon), even after having reviewed it thoroughly several times. I suppose there is something of a learning curve that I have to ovecome first before I can make the proper judgement about what should or should not be in an article. I appreciate the help that you're trying to provide. Since you seem to understand the canon policy much better than I do, please do just go ahead and make the necessary edits, and I will go with whatever you say it should be. As long as the suggestion of the Fen Domar being a Beta Quadrant civilization remains in the article somewhere (which I still feel is a reasonable conjecture based on the evidence), I'm content with whatever other changes need to be made. This discussion is really staring to get kind of old, and I just want it to be done and over with, so we can move on. Thanks :-) --Antodav 07:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Censorship I'm not sure its okay for you to remove a comment becuase of foul language. It was used as an adverb, not a personal attack, so I don't think it violates any of the behavourial policies. I'm putting it back for now. Jaz talk 02:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC) :I removed it not only because of the language but also because it really had nothing to do with the article's content. But mostly I just removed it because I didn't like the guy's attitude, so yeah, you should go ahead and put it back. ;-) --From Andoria with Love 02:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Question on banning an IP I think you are an admin. I have noticed a particular IP address (63.95.64.254) that has contributed 4 or 5 articles today suggest anime references in star trek. They are not well written, have little to no evidence, and I think they are spam. I have tried finding a place to report someone, but can't find one, so I am bringing it to your attention. --OuroborosCobra 03:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)